You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com> on 2008/06/12 12:10:59 UTC
[classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest released
version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the Java 5 class
file features, which is making it complicated to implement pack200 (and also
means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have one). There
is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's much active
development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information about when a
possible 5.3 might be released.
I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available source for
BCEL. Does that sound possible?
Thanks,
Sian
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Tony Wu <wu...@gmail.com>.
what about Javassist? IIRC Jboss, Tapestry and hivemind are using it.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> SERP is another possibility. I know OpenJPA uses it.
>
> http://serp.sourceforge.net/
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok - i'll have a look at ASM and report back.
>>
>> On 21/07/2008, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sian January wrote:
>> >
>> >> ASM might be a good candidate. I haven't looked closely to see if it
>> >> provides everything we need, but it was apparently designed to be as
>> small
>> >> and as fast as possible, which would be good for pack200. It's under a
>> >> BSD
>> >> license - would that be ok for us?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html)
>> >
>> > We would will still have to keep BCEL 5.2 while Yoko depends on it, but I
>> >> don't see why we can't use something different for pack200 and any other
>> >> Harmony uses.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Tim
>> >
>> > On 19/07/2008, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project
>> isn't
>> >>> going anywhere.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Nathan
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <
>> >>> sianjanuary@googlemail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a
>> >>>>
>> >>> conversation
>> >>>
>> >>>> with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems
>> >>>>
>> >>> very
>> >>>
>> >>>> unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future.
>> There
>> >>>>
>> >>> is
>> >>>
>> >>>> apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no
>> >>>> ongoing
>> >>>> development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a
>> >>>> release
>> >>>> candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's
>> >>>> anyone
>> >>>> available to build one.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
>> >>>> non-release build into Harmony?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sian
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1]
>> >>>>
>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new
>> release
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> :)
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
>> >>>>>> features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to
>> see
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> there
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> switch
>> >>>
>> >>>> to
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> years
>> >>>
>> >>>> due
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> high. Also
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> affect
>> >>>
>> >>>> that
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> much of the class library.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> unlikely,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> but
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I
>> will
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> do
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> first.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Sian
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
>> >>>>>> > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
>> >>>>>> > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>
>> >>>> > bleeding sources..
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > SY, Alexey
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
>> >>>>>> > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> released
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Java
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> 5
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> > class
>> >>>>>> > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> pack200
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> (and
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> > also
>> >>>>>> > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we
>> have
>> >>>>>> > one). There
>> >>>>>> > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> there's
>> >>>
>> >>>> much
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> > active
>> >>>>>> > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> about
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> when
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> > a
>> >>>>>> > > possible 5.3 might be released.
>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>> > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> source for
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>> > > Thanks,
>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>> > > Sian
>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>> > > --
>> >>>>>> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>> >>>>>> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>
>> >>>> number
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> > > 741598.
>> >>>>>> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Hampshire
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> PO6
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> > 3AU
>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> number
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> 741598.
>> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> PO6
>> >>>
>> >>>> 3AU
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>> number
>> >>>> 741598.
>> >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
>> >>>>
>> >>> 3AU
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>> 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>
>
--
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
SERP is another possibility. I know OpenJPA uses it.
http://serp.sourceforge.net/
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Ok - i'll have a look at ASM and report back.
>
> On 21/07/2008, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sian January wrote:
> >
> >> ASM might be a good candidate. I haven't looked closely to see if it
> >> provides everything we need, but it was apparently designed to be as
> small
> >> and as fast as possible, which would be good for pack200. It's under a
> >> BSD
> >> license - would that be ok for us?
> >>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html)
> >
> > We would will still have to keep BCEL 5.2 while Yoko depends on it, but I
> >> don't see why we can't use something different for pack200 and any other
> >> Harmony uses.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> > On 19/07/2008, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project
> isn't
> >>> going anywhere.
> >>>
> >>> -Nathan
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <
> >>> sianjanuary@googlemail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a
> >>>>
> >>> conversation
> >>>
> >>>> with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems
> >>>>
> >>> very
> >>>
> >>>> unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future.
> There
> >>>>
> >>> is
> >>>
> >>>> apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no
> >>>> ongoing
> >>>> development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a
> >>>> release
> >>>> candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's
> >>>> anyone
> >>>> available to build one.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
> >>>> non-release build into Harmony?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new
> release
> >>>>>
> >>>> :)
> >>>
> >>>> 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
> >>>>>> features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to
> see
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> there
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> switch
> >>>
> >>>> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> was
> >>>
> >>>> 2
> >>>>
> >>>>> years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> years
> >>>
> >>>> due
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> high. Also
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> affect
> >>>
> >>>> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> much of the class library.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> unlikely,
> >>>>
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I
> will
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> do
> >>>>
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> first.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
> >>>>>> > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
> >>>>>> > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> to
> >>>
> >>>> > bleeding sources..
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > SY, Alexey
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> >>>>>> > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> released
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Java
> >>>>
> >>>>> 5
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > class
> >>>>>> > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> pack200
> >>>>
> >>>>> (and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > also
> >>>>>> > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we
> have
> >>>>>> > one). There
> >>>>>> > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> there's
> >>>
> >>>> much
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > active
> >>>>>> > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> about
> >>>>
> >>>>> when
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > a
> >>>>>> > > possible 5.3 might be released.
> >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> source for
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
> >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> > > Thanks,
> >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> > > Sian
> >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> > > --
> >>>>>> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> >>>>>> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> with
> >>>
> >>>> number
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > > 741598.
> >>>>>> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Hampshire
> >>>>
> >>>>> PO6
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > 3AU
> >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
> >>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> number
> >>>>
> >>>>> 741598.
> >>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> PO6
> >>>
> >>>> 3AU
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
> >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number
> >>>> 741598.
> >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> >>>>
> >>> 3AU
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>.
Ok - i'll have a look at ASM and report back.
On 21/07/2008, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sian January wrote:
>
>> ASM might be a good candidate. I haven't looked closely to see if it
>> provides everything we need, but it was apparently designed to be as small
>> and as fast as possible, which would be good for pack200. It's under a
>> BSD
>> license - would that be ok for us?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html)
>
> We would will still have to keep BCEL 5.2 while Yoko depends on it, but I
>> don't see why we can't use something different for pack200 and any other
>> Harmony uses.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> On 19/07/2008, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't
>>> going anywhere.
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <
>>> sianjanuary@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a
>>>>
>>> conversation
>>>
>>>> with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems
>>>>
>>> very
>>>
>>>> unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future. There
>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>> apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no
>>>> ongoing
>>>> development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a
>>>> release
>>>> candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's
>>>> anyone
>>>> available to build one.
>>>>
>>>> In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
>>>> non-release build into Harmony?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Sian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release
>>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>
>>>> 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
>>>>>> features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see
>>>>>>
>>>>> there
>>>>>
>>>>>> that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily
>>>>>>
>>>>> switch
>>>
>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>> unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release
>>>>>>
>>>>> was
>>>
>>>> 2
>>>>
>>>>> years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of
>>>>>>
>>>>> years
>>>
>>>> due
>>>>>
>>>>>> to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
>>>>>>
>>>>> high. Also
>>>>>
>>>>>> the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't
>>>>>>
>>>>> affect
>>>
>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>> much of the class library.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
>>>>>>
>>>>> unlikely,
>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>>
>>>>>> as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will
>>>>>>
>>>>> do
>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
>>>>>> > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
>>>>>> > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch
>>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>
>>>> > bleeding sources..
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > SY, Alexey
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>> > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
>>>>>>
>>>>> released
>>>>>
>>>>>> > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the
>>>>>>
>>>>> Java
>>>>
>>>>> 5
>>>>>
>>>>>> > class
>>>>>> > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement
>>>>>>
>>>>> pack200
>>>>
>>>>> (and
>>>>>
>>>>>> > also
>>>>>> > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
>>>>>> > one). There
>>>>>> > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think
>>>>>>
>>>>> there's
>>>
>>>> much
>>>>>
>>>>>> > active
>>>>>> > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
>>>>>>
>>>>> about
>>>>
>>>>> when
>>>>>
>>>>>> > a
>>>>>> > > possible 5.3 might be released.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
>>>>>>
>>>>> source for
>>>>>
>>>>>> > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Thanks,
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Sian
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > --
>>>>>> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>>> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
>>>>>>
>>>>> with
>>>
>>>> number
>>>>>
>>>>>> > > 741598.
>>>>>> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hampshire
>>>>
>>>>> PO6
>>>>>
>>>>>> > 3AU
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>>>>>>
>>>>> number
>>>>
>>>>> 741598.
>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>>>>>>
>>>>> PO6
>>>
>>>> 3AU
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>>>> 741598.
>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
>>>>
>>> 3AU
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Sian January wrote:
> ASM might be a good candidate. I haven't looked closely to see if it
> provides everything we need, but it was apparently designed to be as small
> and as fast as possible, which would be good for pack200. It's under a BSD
> license - would that be ok for us?
Yes.
(http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html)
> We would will still have to keep BCEL 5.2 while Yoko depends on it, but I
> don't see why we can't use something different for pack200 and any other
> Harmony uses.
Agreed.
Regards,
Tim
> On 19/07/2008, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't
>> going anywhere.
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a
>> conversation
>>> with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems
>> very
>>> unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future. There
>> is
>>> apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no ongoing
>>> development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a release
>>> candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's anyone
>>> available to build one.
>>>
>>> In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
>>> non-release build into Harmony?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Sian
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
>>>
>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release
>> :)
>>>> 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>> Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
>>>>> features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see
>>>> there
>>>>> that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily
>> switch
>>>> to
>>>>> unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release
>> was
>>> 2
>>>>> years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of
>> years
>>>> due
>>>>> to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
>>>> high. Also
>>>>> the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't
>> affect
>>>> that
>>>>> much of the class library.
>>>>>
>>>>> However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
>>> unlikely,
>>>> but
>>>>> as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will
>>> do
>>>> that
>>>>> first.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
>>>>> > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
>>>>> > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch
>> to
>>>>> > bleeding sources..
>>>>> >
>>>>> > SY, Alexey
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
>>>>> > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
>>>> released
>>>>> > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the
>>> Java
>>>> 5
>>>>> > class
>>>>> > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement
>>> pack200
>>>> (and
>>>>> > also
>>>>> > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
>>>>> > one). There
>>>>> > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think
>> there's
>>>> much
>>>>> > active
>>>>> > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
>>> about
>>>> when
>>>>> > a
>>>>> > > possible 5.3 might be released.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
>>>> source for
>>>>> > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Thanks,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Sian
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > --
>>>>> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
>> with
>>>> number
>>>>> > > 741598.
>>>>> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>>> Hampshire
>>>> PO6
>>>>> > 3AU
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>>> number
>>>>> 741598.
>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>> PO6
>>>> 3AU
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>>> 741598.
>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
>> 3AU
>
>
>
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>.
ASM might be a good candidate. I haven't looked closely to see if it
provides everything we need, but it was apparently designed to be as small
and as fast as possible, which would be good for pack200. It's under a BSD
license - would that be ok for us?
We would will still have to keep BCEL 5.2 while Yoko depends on it, but I
don't see why we can't use something different for pack200 and any other
Harmony uses.
On 19/07/2008, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't
> going anywhere.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a
> conversation
> > with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems
> very
> > unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future. There
> is
> > apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no ongoing
> > development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a release
> > candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's anyone
> > available to build one.
> >
> > In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
> > non-release build into Harmony?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sian
> >
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
> >
> >
> > On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release
> :)
> > >
> > > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > > > Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
> > > > features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see
> > > there
> > > > that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
> > > >
> > > > I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily
> switch
> > > to
> > > > unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release
> was
> > 2
> > > > years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of
> years
> > > due
> > > > to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
> > > high. Also
> > > > the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't
> affect
> > > that
> > > > much of the class library.
> > > >
> > > > However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
> > unlikely,
> > > but
> > > > as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will
> > do
> > > that
> > > > first.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
> > > > > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
> > > > > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch
> to
> > > > > bleeding sources..
> > > > >
> > > > > SY, Alexey
> > > > >
> > > > > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > > > > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
> > > released
> > > > > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the
> > Java
> > > 5
> > > > > class
> > > > > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement
> > pack200
> > > (and
> > > > > also
> > > > > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
> > > > > one). There
> > > > > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think
> there's
> > > much
> > > > > active
> > > > > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
> > about
> > > when
> > > > > a
> > > > > > possible 5.3 might be released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
> > > source for
> > > > > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sian
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
> with
> > > number
> > > > > > 741598.
> > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> > Hampshire
> > > PO6
> > > > > 3AU
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > number
> > > > 741598.
> > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> PO6
> > > 3AU
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
> >
>
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't
> going anywhere.
That was my thought too.
What are people using then if not BCEL? ASM (asm.objectweb.org)?
Tim
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a conversation
>> with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems very
>> unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future. There is
>> apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no ongoing
>> development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a release
>> candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's anyone
>> available to build one.
>>
>> In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
>> non-release build into Harmony?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sian
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release :)
>>>
>>> 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
>>>> Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
>>>> features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see
>>> there
>>>> that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
>>>>
>>>> I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily switch
>>> to
>>>> unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release was
>> 2
>>>> years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of years
>>> due
>>>> to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
>>> high. Also
>>>> the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't affect
>>> that
>>>> much of the class library.
>>>>
>>>> However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
>> unlikely,
>>> but
>>>> as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will
>> do
>>> that
>>>> first.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
>>>> > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
>>>> > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch to
>>>> > bleeding sources..
>>>> >
>>>> > SY, Alexey
>>>> >
>>>> > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
>>>> > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
>>> released
>>>> > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the
>> Java
>>> 5
>>>> > class
>>>> > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement
>> pack200
>>> (and
>>>> > also
>>>> > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
>>>> > one). There
>>>> > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's
>>> much
>>>> > active
>>>> > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
>> about
>>> when
>>>> > a
>>>> > > possible 5.3 might be released.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
>>> source for
>>>> > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thanks,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Sian
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > --
>>>> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>>> number
>>>> > > 741598.
>>>> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>> Hampshire
>>> PO6
>>>> > 3AU
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
>> number
>>>> 741598.
>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
>>> 3AU
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>> 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>
>
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
Should we be considering replacing BCEL? It sounds like the project isn't
going anywhere.
-Nathan
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a conversation
> with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems very
> unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future. There is
> apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no ongoing
> development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a release
> candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's anyone
> available to build one.
>
> In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
> non-release build into Harmony?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sian
>
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
>
>
> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release :)
> >
> > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > > Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
> > > features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see
> > there
> > > that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
> > >
> > > I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily switch
> > to
> > > unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release was
> 2
> > > years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of years
> > due
> > > to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
> > high. Also
> > > the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't affect
> > that
> > > much of the class library.
> > >
> > > However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is
> unlikely,
> > but
> > > as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will
> do
> > that
> > > first.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > Sian
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
> > > > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
> > > > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch to
> > > > bleeding sources..
> > > >
> > > > SY, Alexey
> > > >
> > > > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > > > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
> > released
> > > > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the
> Java
> > 5
> > > > class
> > > > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement
> pack200
> > (and
> > > > also
> > > > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
> > > > one). There
> > > > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's
> > much
> > > > active
> > > > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information
> about
> > when
> > > > a
> > > > > possible 5.3 might be released.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
> > source for
> > > > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > number
> > > > > 741598.
> > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> Hampshire
> > PO6
> > > > 3AU
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number
> > > 741598.
> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> > 3AU
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>.
I'd like to raise the issue of upgrading BCEL again. I had a conversation
with the people on the BCEL mailing list back in June[1] and it seems very
unlikely that they're going to get a 5.3 out in the near future. There is
apparently only one person who reviews and commits patches and no ongoing
development apart from that. There is some interest in testing a release
candidate (and I volunteered myself) but I'm not sure that there's anyone
available to build one.
In the light of this, could we discuss the possibility of bringing an
non-release build into Harmony?
Thanks,
Sian
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/bcel-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg01034.html
On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release :)
>
> 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
> > features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see
> there
> > that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
> >
> > I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily switch
> to
> > unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release was 2
> > years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of years
> due
> > to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very
> high. Also
> > the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't affect
> that
> > much of the class library.
> >
> > However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is unlikely,
> but
> > as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will do
> that
> > first.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Sian
> >
> >
> > On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
> > > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
> > > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch to
> > > bleeding sources..
> > >
> > > SY, Alexey
> > >
> > > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest
> released
> > > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the Java
> 5
> > > class
> > > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement pack200
> (and
> > > also
> > > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
> > > one). There
> > > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's
> much
> > > active
> > > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information about
> when
> > > a
> > > > possible 5.3 might be released.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available
> source for
> > > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Sian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number
> > > > 741598.
> > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> PO6
> > > 3AU
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
> >
>
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, they probably does not know that someone needs their new release :)
2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
> features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see there
> that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
>
> I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily switch to
> unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release was 2
> years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of years due
> to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very high. Also
> the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't affect that
> much of the class library.
>
> However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is unlikely, but
> as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will do that
> first.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Sian
>
>
> On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
> > We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
> > status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch to
> > bleeding sources..
> >
> > SY, Alexey
> >
> > 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest released
> > > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the Java 5
> > class
> > > file features, which is making it complicated to implement pack200 (and
> > also
> > > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
> > one). There
> > > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's much
> > active
> > > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information about when
> > a
> > > possible 5.3 might be released.
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available source for
> > > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Sian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> > > 741598.
> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> > 3AU
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>.
Yes, the latest available source does seem to support all the needed
features. There are a few useful methods that I would expect to see there
that are missing, but they can be worked around fairly easily.
I agree in general that it's not good practice to unneccesarily switch to
unreleased versions, but in the case of BCEL when the last release was 2
years ago and the code base has been very stable for a number of years due
to little active development I wouldn't think the risk is very high. Also
the only dependencies are from pack200 and Yoko, so it doesn't affect that
much of the class library.
However I have been assuming that a 5.3 in the near future is unlikely, but
as you say it would be worth asking on their mailing list, so I will do that
first.
Thanks,
Sian
On 12/06/2008, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
> We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
> status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch to
> bleeding sources..
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> 2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest released
> > version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the Java 5
> class
> > file features, which is making it complicated to implement pack200 (and
> also
> > means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have
> one). There
> > is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's much
> active
> > development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information about when
> a
> > possible 5.3 might be released.
> >
> > I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available source for
> > BCEL. Does that sound possible?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sian
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
> >
>
--
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [classlib] Upgrading BCEL?
Posted by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>.
Does latest available sources support all the needed features?
We also can write a message BCEL developers to understand current
status of the sources. It is probably not the best idea to switch to
bleeding sources..
SY, Alexey
2008/6/12, Sian January <si...@googlemail.com>:
> We're currently using BCEL 5.2 in Harmony, which is the latest released
> version (from June 2006). However it doesn't support all the Java 5 class
> file features, which is making it complicated to implement pack200 (and also
> means that javap won't print Java 5 stuff properly when we have one). There
> is support for these features in HEAD, but I don't think there's much active
> development going on in BCEL and I can't find any information about when a
> possible 5.3 might be released.
>
> I'd like to propose upgrading Harmony to the latest available source for
> BCEL. Does that sound possible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sian
>
>
>
> --
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>